The 1798 Rebellion

In 1798 Ireland was shook by a mass rebellion for democratic
rights and against British rule. 200 years later 1798 continues to
loom over Irish politics. The bi-centenary, co-inciding with the
'Peace process', has attracted considerable discussion, with the
formation of local history groups, the holding of conferences and a
high level of interest in the TV documentaries and books published
around the event.

It is rightly said that history is written by the victors. The
British and loyalist historians who wrote the initial histories of
the rising portrayed it as little more than the actions of a
sectarian mob intent on massacring all Protestants. Later reformers
sought to hide the program of 1798 to unite Irishmen regardless of
creed. After 1798 they turned to the confessional politics of
mobilising Catholics alone. Daniel O'Connell, the main architect of
this policy, went so far in 1841 as to denounce the United Irishmen
as "... wicked and villianously designing wretches who fomented the
rebellion".[1]

So the first response to the Loyalist history in Ireland was an
alternative but parallel history produced to suit a Catholic
nationalist agenda. Both of these agendas neatly dovetailed in
showing the rising as a fight for "faith and fatherland". This is
illustrated by the treatment of two portraits of prominent figures in
the rebellion. Lord Edward Fitzgerald had his red cravat[2] painted
out and replaced with a white one. Father Murphy had his cravat
painted out and replaced with a priest's collar! Within parts of
republicanism and the left there have been attempts to rescue this
history, starting with the memoirs of United Irishmen like Myles
Byrne who chose exile over compromise. But, all too often, this
history has been crushed beneath histories designed to fulfil the
needs of the British and Irish ruling class.

James Connolly neatly described the Irish nationalist version of
1798 thus

"The middle class "patriotic" historians, orators, and
journalists of Ireland have ever vied with one another in
enthusiastic descriptions of their military exploits on land and sea,
their hairbreadth escapes and heroic martyrdom, but have resolutely
suppressed or distorted their writings, songs and manifestos."[3]

In short, although the name of the United Irishmen was honoured,
their democratic ideas were buried even before the formation of the
26 county state.

In the 1840's Ireland once again fell under the influence of a
wave of international radicalism. They sought to uncover the real
aims of the 1798 rebellion. The republican organisation of the
1840's, the Young Irelanders "celebrated the United Irishmen not as
passive victims or reluctant rebels, but as ideologically committed
revolutionaries with a coherent political strategy".[4] They placed a
marker on the grave of the key United Irishmen leader, Wolfe Tone, at
Bodenstown. Paying homage at the grave is an essential annual rite
for any party wishing to claim the republican legacy.

These different histories mean that even within republicanism
there was little agreement about what the real legacy of 1798 was. In
1934 when Protestant members of the Republican Congress arrived at
Bodenstown with a banner proclaiming 'Break the connection with
capitalism' they were physically assaulted and driven off by IRA
members.

Of particular note is the way the women of 1798 have either been
written out of history altogether or exist only as the faithful wives
of the nationalist histories and the blood crazed witches of the
loyalist accounts. Like other republicans of that period the United
Irishmen - for the most part - did not see a role for women, although
"one proposal was made that women should have the vote as well"[5] .
Nevertheless a number of women, including Mary Ann McCracken, played
an important role from an early period in promoting the organisation,
and a Society of United Irishwomen was established in 1796.[6]

In the run up to the rebellion, women were particularly active in
subverting the Militia. They would swear in soldiers and also spread
rumours that the troops were going to be sent abroad. Women were
active in the rebellion, not just in 'traditional roles' of medical
aid etc., but also in quite a number of cases as combatants. However,
almost all of these roles seem to be ones that individual women
demanded and fought for, there is little evidence of any serious
effort on the part of the United Irishmen to mobilise women.

This article is derived from an earlier draft that was
twice as long. Part 1 of
this draft explains the backgound of the rebellion and the
organisation of the Unitied Irishmen in some detail and so
the author has made it available.

An overview of the Rebellion

In the Autumn of 1791, societies of United Irishmen were formed in
Belfast and Dublin. Initially the organisation limited itself to
calling for democratic reforms including Catholic emancipation[7] .
In response to popular pressure, the British government - which
effectively ruled Ireland - initially granted some reforms. This
period of reform ended in 1793, when war broke out between
revolutionary France and Britain.

In December of 1796 the United Irishmen came the nearest they
would to victory, when 15,000 French troops arrived off Bantry Bay.
Bad weather prevented the landing and saved Britain from defeat.
After Bantry Bay, Irish society was bitterly polarised as loyalists
flocked to join the British army and the United Irishmen's numbers
swelled massively.

By the Spring of 1798, a campaign of British terror was destroying
the United Irishmen organisation and many of the leaders had been
arrested. The remaining leaders felt forced to call an immediate
rising, even though this would be before French aid could arrive. The
date was set for May 23rd. A number of factors undermined the rising
in Dublin. However major risings occurred in Wexford in the south,
and Antrim and Down in the north. Elsewhere there were minor
skirmishes. By the autumn - despite a small French landing - the
rebellion had been defeated, tens of thousands were dead and a reign
of terror had spread over the country.

Origins of the rising

The 1798 rising occurred at a unique moment in world politics, the
point at which parliamentary democracy (and capitalism) was replacing
absolute monarchy (and feudalism). The American Revolution of 1771-81
and the French Revolution of 1789 were the key inspirations for those
who were to lead the rebellion in Ireland. Wolfe Tone described how
"the French Revolution became the test of every man's political
creed, and the nation was fairly divided into two great parties
&endash; the aristocracy and democrats".[8 ]

To this was added the severe oppression the majority of Irish
people lived under. The country was bitterly divided , two wars had
been fought in the previous century with the combatants split along
religious lines. The native Catholic landowning class had been forced
either to surrender their lands or to convert to the Anglican
religion. In parts of the country, in particular the North-East, even
the ordinary Catholic tenants had been forced off the land, to be
replaced with Presbyterian 'planters' brought over from Scotland.
This left a legacy of sectarian rivalry which helped the British to
'divide and rule'.

Although some reforms had been won, the situation by the 1780's
was that the country was ruled by Anglican landowners, with
Presbyterian landowners having only limited political power, and
Catholic landowners none. Beyond this, the mass of the population,
Catholic, Protestant (Anglican) and Dissenter (Presbyterian) had
virtually no rights at all. In 1831 there were 6,000 absentee
landlords, who owned over 7,000,000 acres.

The complete subjection the peasantry were subjected to is hinted
by a traveller through Ireland at the time who wrote

"A landlord in Ireland can scarcely invent an order
which a servant, labourer, or cottier dares to refuse to execute. ...
A poor man would have his bones broken if he offered to lift a hand
in his own defence . . . Landlords of consequence have assured me
that many of their cottiers would think themselves honoured by having
their wives and daughters sent for to the bed of their master."[9]

There were famines in 1740, '57, '65 and '70. The first of these
alone killed 400,000.[10 ]

The arrival of capitalism had seen the beginnings of a working
class. There were at least 27 labour disputes in Dublin from 1717 to
1800 and the formation of the early trade unions had started11 .
"There were 50 combinations in 27 different trades in Dublin in the
period 1772-95. There were at least 30 food riots ... in the period
1772-94.."[12]

This atmosphere of revolutionary ideas on the one hand, and brutal
oppression on the other, was the climate in which the United Irishmen
were born in 1791. This initially reformist organisation, at first
composed of the Protestant middle class was to choose within a few
years to take the path of launching a democratic and anti-colonial
revolution.

Leadership Vs masses

According to the Report of the Secret Committee of the House of
Lords - shortly before the United Irishmen were founded - Tone,
Samuel Neilson and others in the north circulated a Secret Manifesto
to the Friends of Freedom in Ireland. Towards the end this contained
a description of past movements that was to prove prophetic as a
description of events in 1798

"When the aristocracy come forward, the people fall backwards;
when the people come forward, the aristocracy, fearful of being left
behind, insinuate themselves into our ranks and rise into timid
leaders or treacherous auxiliaries."[13]

Once the United Irishmen had decided to take the direction of
rebellion, they had to win the mass of the people actively to join in
such a rebellion. To do this they highlighted the economic advantages
of reform. Gaining the vote for rich Catholic landowners would mean
little to those paying rent for this land.

Dr Willam James MacNeven, under interrogation by the House of
Lords in 1798, when asked if Catholic emancipation or parliamentary
reform mobilised 'the lower orders' said "I am sure they do not
understand it. What they very well understand is that it would be a
very great advantage to them to be relieved from the payments of
tithes and not to be fleeced by the landlords"[14] In 1794 they asked
"Who makes them rich? The answer is obvious - it is the industrious
poor".

Historian Nancy Curtin points out that "Some united Irish
recruiters ... suggested that a major redistribution of land would
follow a successful revolution" and that as a result "To a certain
extent republicanism became associated in the common mind with low
rents, the abolition of tithes and a tax burden borne by the wealthy
and idle rather than by the poor and industrious"[15]

The Union doctrine; or poor man's catechism, was published
anonymously as part of this effort and read in part

"I believe in a revolution founded on the rights of
man, in the natural and imprescriptable right of all citizens to all
the land ... As the land and its produce was intended for the use of
man 'tis unfair for fifty or a hundred men to possess what is for the
subsistence of near five millions ..."[16]

Before 1794 the role consigned by republican leaders to the masses
was one of fairly passive displays of support for change. For example
Illuminations (where people put lights in their windows) were
important to show the level of public support.

Following the 1794 banning of the Dublin United Irishmen the
masses became more actively involved. Riots were organised by the
United Irishmen, particularly around the arrival of the new Viceroy,
Camden, in March 1795, when aristocrats were stoned in the streets of
Dublin.

As public demonstrations were banned, various ruses were used to
gather United Irishmen together. Race meeting were used as pretexts
for mass assemblies. Mock funerals with up to 2,000 'mourners' would
be held, sometimes the coffin would actually contain arms. In the
countryside mass potato diggings (often for imprisoned United
Irishmen) were organised and often conducted as military drills.
These were a way of seeing who would turn out and how well they would
follow orders.

This following of orders was central to the preparation for
rebellion, as the United Irishmen's leadership wanted to be able to
control and discipline the masses in the event of a rising. This was
also why a French landing was central. The French army would help not
just to beat Britain, but also to control the masses. The original
strategy for the rebellion was for only a few thousand United
Irishmen to join the army of the French (and for these to be quickly
disciplined).

This is the context in which Tone's "Our freedom must be had at
all hazards. If the men of property will not help us, they must fall;
we will free ourselves by the aid of that large and respectable class
of the community - the men of no property" must be taken. Yes, the
United Irishmen had turned to the 'men of no property', but the
leadership still intended to run the show, and with French help hold
back the masses if necessary.

After 1794, with the turn towards revolutionary politics and the
need to mobilise the masses, the class basis of the United Irishmen
underwent a radical change. Dublin membership of artisans, clerks and
labourers rose to nearly 50% of the total.[17]

Other popular political societies in Dublin in the 1790's included
'the Strugglers'. One judge referred to "the nest of clubs in the
city of Dublin". Their membership was said to consist of "The younger
part of the tradesmen, and in general all the apprentices". The
informer Higgins described these clubs as comprising "King killers,
Paineites, democrats, levellers and United Irishmen".[18]

The link with the 'Defenders'

A central part of the strategy for mass rebellion was to build
links with the already established movements, and in particular the
Defenders. The Defenders had started as a local 'faction' (gang) in
Armagh and were initially non-sectarian, their first Captain being
Presbyterian.[19] Armagh was the scene of intense political agitation
around the arming of Catholics, with the Protestant Orange Order[20]
conducting armed attacks on Catholics. However the arming of the
Catholics had "the full support of a radical section of Protestant
political opinion" [21] . These origins are important, as later
historians have attempted to portray the Defenders as purely a
Catholic sectarian organisation, a sort of mirror image of the Orange
Order.

In 1795, up to 7,000 Catholics were driven out of Armagh by Orange
Order pogroms. The United Irishmen provided lawyers to prosecute on
behalf of the victims of Orange attacks. "Special missions were
dispatched there in 1792 and again in 1795 and senior figures like
Neilson, Teeling, McCracken, Quigley and Lowry worked the area
ceaselessly ... ".[22] Many expelled Catholic families were sheltered
by Presbyterian United Irishmen in Belfast, and later, Antrim and
Down. These expulsions facilitated the spread of Defenderism and fear
of the Orange Order to other parts of Ireland.

The Defenders were already politicised to some extent by the hope
of French intervention and their anti- tax and anti-tithe propaganda.
They proclaimed "We have lived long enough upon potatoes and salt; it
is our turn now to eat mutton and beef" [23] . Despite their rural
origins the Defenders were not a peasant movement but "drawn from
among weavers, labourers and tenant farmers ... and from the growing
artisan class of the towns". By 1795 there were some 4000 Defenders
in Dublin, closely linked with many of the republican clubs in the
city. The complex nature of the Defenders is illustrated as "in
Dublin there were Protestant Defenders" even though "revenge against
Protestants was certainly an important element in Defender thinking"
[24] .

The Orange Order attacks had inevitably introduced sectarianism
into the Defenders. But the United Irishmen saw this sectarianism as
being due to the influence of priests, and directed only against
Protestant landlords. This was to prove a serious under estimation,
particularly outside of the north.

The Rebellion

In December of 1796, a French Fleet appeared off the shores of
Bantry Bay with 15,000 French soldiers and Wolfe Tone. Rough seas and
inexperienced sailors prevented a landing which would have liberated
the country from British rule. The British campaign of terror against
the United Irishmen which followed was seriously undermining the
organisation by 1798. In the Spring of 1798, pressure was mounting
for a rising without the French, and after the arrest of most of the
Leinster leadership a date for the rising was set by those who
escaped.

The key to the rising was to be Dublin. It was intended to seize
the city and trigger a message to the rest of the country by stopping
the mail coaches. However, although thousands turned out for the
rising in the city, it ended up as a fiasco with almost no fighting.
The reasons why this happened can be found in the class basis of the
leadership of the United Irishmen.

Once it was clear that the rising was going to happen without the
French, it was also clear that there was no mechanism to hold back
the workers and peasants from going beyond the bourgeois democratic
and separatist aims of the rising. The key informer who betrayed the
Dublin rising, Reynolds, had turned because of fears of his ancestral
estates being confiscated.[25]

Edward Fitzgerald, Neilson and the others who planned the May 21st
rising in Dublin were willing to risk this. But they were arrested
and removed from the scene by May 19th. The British, on the
information of informers, had seized the gathering point for the
rising. In the confusion there was little chance of the rank and file
of the United Irishmen gathering to create an alternative plan. And
the second rank of leadership, which could have created an
alternative plan, failed to do so precisely because it now feared the
uncontrolled 'mob'.

Precisely as had been warned "when the people come
forward, the aristocracy, fearful of being left behind, insinuate
themselves into our ranks and rise into timid leaders or treacherous
auxiliaries."

The Wexford Republic

A limited rising occurred around Dublin which was rapidly and
brutally suppressed. Loyalists and British forces unleashed further
terror in the rest of the country. In Wicklow and North Wexford this
included the execution of over 50 United Irish prisoners, the murder
of civilians and the burning of homes.

There was United Irishmen organisation in this area, Wexford town
was considered the preferred landing place for the French. But the
bulk of the 300 or so United Irishmen here do not appear to have been
preparing for a rising. One historian of the rebellion, Dickson,
reckons that "without a French landing and without the compulsion
applied by the magistrates and their agents ... there would have been
no Wexford rising at all".[26] and his account demonstrates that the
early battles were spontaneous clashes. The all important initial
victory was at Oulard, where there was no real rebel commander and
some of the United Irishmen were armed only with stones.

The Oulard victory demonstrated that the British army were not
unbeatable. This, and the increasing repression, saw hundreds and
then thousands flock to join the rebel hilltop encampments. However
the superior tactics, arms and training of the British forces was to
prove a match for the rebels. On 4th and 5th June the rebellion
suffered its most decisive defeat at the battle of New Ross, and on
9th the defeat at the battle of Arklow was the last major attempt to
spread the rebellion to neighbouring counties.

Wexford town was however liberated for three weeks. At the time it
was thriving and had a population of 10,000, many of whom were
Protestants. After liberation, a seven man directory of the main
United Irishmen and a 500 strong senate took over the running of the
town. Both of these included Catholic and Protestant members. In
addition each area / district had its own local committee, militia
and elected leader. The time before it was retaken was not sufficient
for much constructive activity beyond the printing of ration coupons.
However the limited reorganisation of local government that did
occur, and its success in maintaining order until just before the
town fell, demonstrates the often denied political side of the
Wexford rebellion.[27]

On 21st the final major battle of the 'Wexford republic' was
fought at Vinegar Hill. It had taken some 20,000 British soldiers
three weeks to crush the 30,000 Wexford rebels who were "utterly
untrained, practically leaderless and miserably armed".[28]

Events in Antrim/Down

The North had also seen a savage campaign of British torture which
had terrified, disorganised and disarmed many of the United Irishmen.
General Knox had told General Lake that his methods were also
intended to "increase the animosity between the Orangemen and the
United Irishmen". Robert Simms who was Adjacent-General of the United
Irishmen in the north simply refused to acknowledge that the signal
from Dublin indicated he should rise. Instead, presumably in part for
the class interests already outlined, he preferred to wait for the
French.

Nevertheless, the rank and file were determined there should be a
rising and the lower officers with Henry Joy McCracken (who had just
returned from jail in Dublin) forced Simms to resign on June 1st and
got an order for a rising at a delegate meeting on June 2nd. This
delay meant it was not till 5th that the rising started in Antrim,
and 7th in Down. In the course of this delay, the northern rising was
further weakened. Three of the United Irishmen colonels gave the
plans to the British, taking away any element of surprise and
allowing them to prepare for the rising.

More seriously, stories started reaching the north from the
Wexford rebellion with the newspapers "rivalling rumour in portraying
in Wexford an image of Catholic massacre and plunder equalled only by
legends ...". Many of these stories were false although some
Protestant men had been killed in Enniscorthy. The distorted version
that reached the north by 4 June (before the rising) was that "at
Enniscorthy in the county of Wexford every Protestant man, woman and
child, even infants, have been murdered". Alongside this were
manufactured items like a supposed Wexford Oath "I, A.B. do solemnly
swear ... that I will burn, destroy and murder all heretics up to my
knees in blood".

Later commentaries tried to deny the scale of the Northern rising,
or have claimed that many Presbyterians failed to turn out. However,
given all of the above, what is truly remarkable is how little effect
all this had, in particular as by 5th the Wexford rising had clearly
failed to spread. Of the 31,000 United Irishmen in the area of the
northern rising, 22,000 actually took part in the major battles (more
turned out but missed the major battles).[29]

Like the Wexford rising, the Northern rebels succeeded in winning
minor skirmishes against the British but were defeated in the major
battles by the experienced and better equipped. As in Wexford, the
British burned towns, villages and houses they considered sympathetic
to the rebels and massacred both prisoners and wounded during and
after the battles. After the battle of Antrim, some were buried
alive.[30]

The last major battle of the Northern rising was at Ballynahinch
on 13th June. By the time the French arrived in Killala in August, it
was too late, although their initial success does suggest that either
the Wexford or Antrim rebels may have been much more successful if
they had the benefit of even the small number of experienced French
troops and arms later landed at Killala.

Some 32 United Irishmen leaders were executed in the North after
the rising, including two Presbyterian ministers. Henry Joy McCracken
in hiding after the rising, wrote a letter to his sister in which he
sums up the cause of the failure of the rising as "the rich always
betray the poor". He was captured and executed in Belfast on July
16th.

Post rebellion republicans

After the rising it was in the interests of those who had led it
to minimise their involvement by insisting they were ignorant dupes
or forced by 'the mob' to take part. A song asks "Who fears to speak
of '98?". People researching oral histories have indicated that the
answer was 'just about everyone'. Even the year of death on the
gravestones of those who died in the rising was commonly falsified.
The reason was the British campaign of terror, which carried on into
the following century with chapel burning's and deportations of cart
loads of suspects.

In Wexford, where the death penalty still applied to anyone who
had been a United Irish officer, it was a common defence for
ex-leaders to claim they were forced into their role by mobs of
rebels. This explanation was handy for both the official and Catholic
nationalist versions of the history. It suggested that the Protestant
portion of the leadership was coincidental in what was otherwise a
confessional or sectarian rising, depending on your point of view.
This deception was credible because the United Irishmen membership
lists for Wexford were never captured. This allowed ex-rebel leaders
like Edward Hay to argue that "there were fewer United Irishmen in
the county of Wexford then in any other part of Ireland"[31] .

The Orange Order

On the loyalist side, the Orange Order needed to minimise
Presbyterian involvement in the rising and portray it as a purely
sectarian and Catholic affair. So loyalist accounts have tended to
focus on the Wexford massacres, often making quite false claims about
their scale, who was massacred and why they were massacred. Musgraves
(the main loyalist historian) in his coverage of the rebellion gives
only 2% of his writing to the Antrim and Down rebellion while 62% of
his coverage concentrates on Wexford.[32] The limited accounts given
of the Northern rising portray it as idealistic Presbyterians being
betrayed by their Catholic neighbours and so learning to become 'good
loyal Orange men'. The scale of British and loyalist massacres of
these Presbyterians is seldom mentioned.

The Centenary

More than anything else the Catholic nationalist history of the
rising was determined by the needs of the Catholic church when faced
with the socialist influenced Fenian movement one hundred years
later. Patrick Kavanagh's 'A Popular history of the insurrection of
1798', published in 1870 was the major work from this perspective.
This 'history' had several aims; to hide the role of the church
hierarchy in condemning the rising (and instead claim that the church
led the rising); to blame the failure of the rising on underground
revolutionary organisation (as an attack on the Fenians); and to
minimise the involvement of Northern Presbyterians and democratic
ideals. In so far as they are mentioned the view is that "it was the
turbulent and disorderly Presbyterians who seduced the law abiding
Catholics". [33]

This history has therefore emphasised the rebellion in Wexford and
elevated the role of the handful of priests who played an active
part. Father Murphy thus becomes the leader of the rising. The fight
was for 'faith and fatherland', as a statue of a Pikeman draped in
rosary beads which was erected in Enniscorthy on the hundredth
anniversary of the rising proclaims. Finally, the role of the United
Irishmen is minimised. The leadership role of United Irishmen like
Baganal Harvey, Matthew Keogh and Edward Lough, who were Protestant,
is glossed over. The failure of the rebellion is 'explained' by the
inevitability of revolutionary movements being betrayed by informers.
Patrick Kavanagh presents Father Murphy as the sole heart of the
insurrection, and the United Irishmen as "riddled by spies, ruined by
drink, with self-important leaders ... ". [34]

Issues of '98

To a large extent, these histories shaped the popular
understanding of the rising. In this limited space it is impossible
to address all the issues they raise. But there is a need for current
revolutionary organisations in Ireland to dispel the illusions
created of the past. This is particularly true with regard to
Protestant workers in the north who are largely unaware that it was
their forefathers who invented Irish republicanism, nor indeed that
the first Republican victim of a showtrial and execution was a
Presbyterian from Ballymena, Willam Orr.

The current debate on the release of political prisoners could be
much informed if Orr's pre-execution words were remembered "If to
have loved my country, to have known its Wrongs, to have felt the
Injuries of the persecuted Catholics and to have united with them and
all other Religious Persuasion in the most orderly and sanguinary
means of procuring Redress - If these be Felonies I am a Felon but
not otherwise ...". [35]

The role of the Catholic church

Although, by 1898, the Catholic church would choose to pretend it
had led the Wexford rising, in 1798 nothing could be further from the
truth. Dr Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, said within days of the rising
(27 May 1798) that "We bitterly lament the fatal consequences of this
anti-Christian conspiracy".

In fact the Catholic hierarchy was opposed to the radical ideas of
the rebellion and, especially since the opening of the Catholic
seminary at Maynooth, stood beside Britain and the Irish Protestant
Ascendancy class. Three days after the rebellion had started, the
following declaration came out of Maynooth

"We, the undersigned, his Majesty's most loyal
subjects, the Roman Catholics of Ireland, think it necessary at this
moment publicly to declare our firm attachment to his Majesty's royal
person, and to the constitution under which we have the happiness to
live ... We cannot avoid expressing to Your Excellency our regret at
seeing, amid the general delusion, many, particularly of the lower
orders, of our own religious persuasion engaged in unlawful
associations and practises" (30 May 1798)

This was signed by the President of the Royal College of Maynooth
and 2000 of the Professors and students, 4 lords and 72 baronets.36
One of the Wexford rebels, Myles Byrne, wrote afterwards that
"priests saved the infamous English government in Ireland from
destruction".[37]

Individual Catholic priests like Father Murphy played an important
leadership role in the rising, alongside the mostly Protestant United
Irishmen leaders. According to Dickson "at least eleven Catholic
curates took an active part and of these three were executed".[38]
But their own Bishop described the rebel priests after the rebellion
as "excommunicated priests, drunken and profligate couple-beggars,
the very faeces of the Church". [39] Their role in the leadership of
the rising was against the wishes of the hierarchy and out of a
motivation to protect their parishioners from Loyalist atrocities.

Was the rebellion Protestant in the north and Catholic in the
south?

A more complex attempt to deny the legacy of 1798 is to suggest
that the northern and southern risings were not really connected.
That the northern rising was Presbyterian and democratic while the
southern was Catholic and sectarian.

Although the population (and thus the rebels) in the north were
mainly Presbyterian and those in the south mainly Catholic, both
armies contained considerable number of both religions. I've already
mentioned some of the Protestant leaders in the south. Indeed, if
partly to head off sectarian tension within the rebel army, United
Irishmen commander Roche issued a proclamation on 7th June "to my
Protestant soldiers I feel much in dept for their gallant behaviour
in the field". For the reasons discussed below, the Wexford rising
was seriously mired by sectarianism, but right to the end there were
Protestants among the rebels. It is still remembered around Carlow
that after the battle Father John Murphy was hidden by a Protestant
farmer, only to be betrayed by a Catholic the next day.

It is true that in the north there were sectarian tensions
present, a Catholic United Irish officer urged a column of
Presbyterians to "avenge the Battle of the Boyne"[40] just before the
battle of Antrim! Also in the north, at Ballynahinch, the Defenders
(who would have been overwhelmingly Catholic) fought as a distinct
unit. However the figures show that thousands of Catholics and
Protestants turned out and fought side by side in a series of
battles, despite the obvious hopelessness of the situation.

Protestants in Wicklow and Wexford

There were stronger sectarian elements in the Wexford rising. To
understand where these came from, we need to look at events
immediately before the rising. About 25% of the population was
Protestant, these included a few recently arrived colonies that must
have displaced earlier Catholic tenants and thus caused sectarian
tensions.

The high percentage of Protestants in Wexford also made it
possible to construct a Militia and later Yeomanry that was extremely
sectarian in composition, in the words of Dickson in Wexford "these
Yeoman were almost entirely a Protestant force".[41] This Yeomanry
was responsible in part for the savage repression that preceded the
rising and the initial house and chapel burning during it. Col. Hugh
Pearse observed "in Wexford at least, the misconduct of the Militia
and Yeomanry ... was largely to blame for the outbreak ... it can
only be said that cruelty and oppression produced a yet more savage
revenge".[42]

When faced with a Protestant Landlord class mobilising a mainly
Protestant local army to torture them and burn their chapels, it is
perhaps unsurprising that many Catholics were inclined to identify
Protestants as a whole as the problem. The United Irishmen
organisation in the area before the rising was too small to make much
progress in overcoming this feeling, and in fact one of their tactics
added to the sectarian tension. There were Orange Lodges in Wexford
and Wicklow. As elsewhere, there is evidence that the United Irishmen
deliberately spread rumours of an Orange plot to massacre Catholics.
The intention was that the Catholics would join the rebellion in
greater numbers, but such rumours inevitably heightened distrust of
all Protestants.

The Wexford massacres

Throughout the Wexford rising, sectarian tensions were never far
from erupting. This was expressed throughout the rising as a pressure
on Protestants to convert to Catholicism, particularly in Wexford
town where "Among the insurgent rank and file ... heresy hunting
became widespread ... Protestants found it prudent to attend mass as
the only means of saving their lives."[43] When the rebels carried
out massacres they often had strong sectarian undertones. Loyalist
historians and even Pakenham, the most widely read historian of the
rising, are guilty of distorting the nature of these massacres by
claiming only Protestants were executed.

The reality of the Wexford massacres was that the victims tended
to be landlords, or the actual agents of British rule like
magistrates and those related to them or in service to them. Anyone
suspected of being an Orangeman was also liable to be executed.
Massacres were also a feature of the rebellion in the north, where no
sectarian motive can so easily be attached. A rebel unit near
Saintfield (in the north), led by James Breeze, attacked and set fire
to the home of Hugh McKee, a well known loyalist and informer,
burning him, his wife, five sons, three daughters and housemaid to
death.[44]

Loyalist historians are also guilty of ignoring or minimising the
causes of most of the massacres, the far larger massacres by British
army and loyalist forces of civilians, rebel prisoners and wounded.
The greatest of these was the massacres during and after the battle
of New Ross where even the Loyalist historian Rev. James Gordon
admits "I have reason to think more men than fell in battle were
slain in cold blood"[45] . The scale of this massacre can only be
guessed at, but after the battle 3, 400 rebels were buried, 62 cart
loads of rebel bodies were thrown in the river and many others
(particularly wounded) were burned in the houses of the town.
According to many accounts the screams of wounded rebels being
deliberately burned alive may have played a significant part in the
murder of 100 loyalist civilian prisoners at nearby Scullabogue on
the morning of the battle.

At Scullabogue around 100 were murdered, 74 were burned alive in a
barn, (nine of whom were women and 8 of whom were Catholic) and 21
men were killed on the front lawn. A survivor, Frizel stated that the
cause was the rumour that the military were murdering prisoners at
New Ross.[46] At least three Protestants were amongst the rebels who
carried out these killings. The presence of Protestants amongst the
murderers and Catholics among the victims gives the lie to the claim
that this was a simple sectarian massacre.

The leadership of the rebellion, both United Irishmen and the
Catholic priests, tried to defuse the sectarian tension and prevent
massacres. On 7th June, Edward Lough, commander of the Vinegar Hill
camp, issued a proclamation "this is not a war for religion but for
liberty".[47] Vinegar Hill was the site of many individual executions
over the 23 days the rebel camp existed there. Between 300 and 400
were executed, most were Protestant although Luke Byrne, one of the
organisers of the executions, is quoted as saying "If anyone can
vouch for any of the prisoners not being Orangemen, I have no
objection they should be discharged" and indeed all captured Quakers
were released.[48] In general, throughout Wexford Quakers who were
Protestant but not associated with loyalism were well treated by the
rebels, but did suffer at the hands of the loyalists.

A proclamation from Wexford on 9th June called to "protect the
persons and properties of those of all religious persuasions who have
not oppressed us"[49] and on 14th June the United Irishmen oath was
introduced to the Wexford army. None of this is to deny that there
were sectarian tensions and indeed sectarian elements to the
massacres, perhaps most openly after the rebel army had abandoned
Wexford. Thomas Dixon and his wife then brought 70 men into the town
during the night "from the northern side of the Slaney" and plied
them with whiskey. The following day a massacre started at 14:00 and
lasted over five hours. Up to 97 were murdered.

However, even here, not all the 260 prisoners from whom those
massacred were selected could be described as innocent victims. One
of those killed (Turner) was seen burning cabins in Oulard shortly
before the battle there.[50] Another prisoner who survived was Lord
Kingsborough, commander of the hated North Cork Militia and popularly
regarded as having introduced the pitch cap torture, in which the
victims head was set on fire.[51] Most significantly this massacre
happened when the rebel army had withdrawn from the town and stopped
when rebel forces returned.

It is an unfortunate feature of some republican and left histories
of 1798 that the sectarian nature of the Wexford massacres is either
avoided or minimised. To northern Protestant workers today this
merely appears to confirm an impression that this is the secret
agenda of the republican movement. The stories - both true and false
- of sectarian massacres in Wexford that were circulated in the North
before and during the rising must have undermined the unity of the
United Irishmen. Although the Wexford leadership did act to limit
sectarianism, in hindsight it is obvious that the United Irishmen
were complacent about sectarianism amongst the Defenders and in
Wexford more could and should have been done. In particular the final
and most blatantly sectarian massacre, at Wexford bridge, could
probably have been avoided if the Dixons, the couple at the centre of
it, had been silenced. They had spent the period of the rebellion in
Wexford trying to whip up a pogrom.

1798 and Irish nationalism

The debate around nation is in itself something that divides the
Irish left. In particular after the partition of Ireland in 1922,
there has been a real and somewhat successful effort to divide people
into two nations. One consists of all the people in the south along
with northern Catholics. Catholicism is a central part of this
definition, with the Catholic Church being given an informal veto for
many decades over state policy in the south. To a large extent this
definition is tacitly accepted by many parts of the Republican
movement today. Francie Molloy's 1996 election campaign posters -
based on there being 20,000 more nationalists (i.e. Catholics) than
Protestants in Mid-Ulster - is a case in point. This has led to a
situation where those responsible for sectarian murders of
Protestants were not treated as seriously by the republican movement
as informers or even those judged guilty of 'anti-social' crime.

However, the south has started to emerge from under the long dark
shadow of Catholic nationalism, in the urban centres at least. De
Valera's comely maids at the Crossroads and the threat of the
Bishop's crosier have faded into a distant and bizarre past.

However in the north, the ideology of a 'Protestant state for a
Protestant people' is still strong. Particularly in recent years,
this has seen the political decision of northern loyalists to start
referring to themselves as British or 'Ulster-Scots'. This is a quite
remarkable robbing of even the history of loyalism, and would have
been an insult to even the Orangemen of 1798, one of whom James
Claudius Beresford declared he was "Proud of the name of an Irishman,
I hope never to exchange it for that of a colonist".[52]

A couple of years after the rising, Britain succeeded in forcing
the Irish Parliament to pass an 'Act of Union' which effectively
dissolved that parliament and replaced it with direct rule from
Westminster. It is ironic that 36 Orange Lodges in Co. Armagh and 13
in Co. Fermanagh declared against this Act of Union. Lodge No. 500
declared it would "support the independence of Ireland and the
constitution of 1782" and "declare as Orangemen, as Freeholders, as
Irishmen that we consider the extinction of our separate legislature
as the extinction of the Irish Nation".[53]

What was the nation fought for in 1798?

The rewriting of the history of 1798 by loyalists and nationalists
alike has a common purpose, which is to define being 'Irish' as
containing a requirement to being a Catholic. The greatest defeat of
1798 is the success of this project, in particular after partition
when the southern and northern states adopted opposed confessional
definitions of themselves. One legacy of that failure is that in 1998
we not only live on a divided island but that the vast majority of
our hospitals and schools are either Catholic or Protestant.

The United Irishmen's core project, to replace the name of
Irishman for the labels of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter was not
an abstract nationalist one. It came from a concrete analysis that
unless this was done then no progress could be made because a people
divided were easily ruled. Here lies the greatest gulf with
'republicans' today who reverse this process and imagine that such
unity can only be the outcome rather than the cause of progress.

The rebellion of the United Irishmen was not a rebellion for four
abstract green fields, free of John Bull. It was inspired by the new
ideas of equality, fraternity and liberty coming out of the French
revolution. Separatism became a necessary step once it was realised
that fulfilling these ideas required the ending of British rule. For
many it also represented a rebellion against the ownership of land by
a few, and for some a move towards an equality of property.

Those leaders who planned the rising were part of a revolutionary
wave sweeping the western world, they were internationalists and
indeed an agreement for distinct republics was drawn up with the
United Scotsmen and the United Englishmen.[54] They corresponded with
similar societies in Paris and London. Some, like Thomas Russell,
were also active anti-slavery campaigners. As Connolly puts it "these
men aimed at nothing less than a social and political revolution such
as had been accomplished in France, or even greater".[55]

None of this is to claim that socialism was on the agenda in 1798.
Common ownership of the means of production would not become a
logical solution for some years yet, when large numbers of people
started to work in situations where they could not simply divide up
their workplace. But there is no denying that radical ideas that are
well in advance of today's republicans were on the agenda of many in
1798.

The central message of 1798 was not Irish unity for its own sake,
indeed the strongest opponents of the British parliament had been the
Irish ascendancy, terrified that direct rule might result in Catholic
emancipation. Unity offered to remove the sectarian barriers that
enabled a tiny ascendancy class to rule over millions without
granting even a thimble full of democratic rights. The struggle has
progressed since as many of these rights have been won, but in terms
of creating an anarchist society the words of James Hope, the most
proletarian of the 1798 leaders still apply

In June of 1795 several Irish
Protestants gathered on top of Cave Hill, overlooking
Belfast. They swore " never to desist in our efforts until
we had subverted the authority of England over our country
and asserted our independence". Three years later 100,000
rose against Britain in the first Irish republican
insurrection. Andrew
Flood examines what they
were fighting for and how they influenced modern Irish
nationalism. [In
Spanish]